The Obama administration recently vetoed a partial ban on the import and sale of some Apple products, which was granted back in June in a response to a ruling made by the United States International Trade Commission. The ban, which applied to AT&T models of the iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS and 3G models of the iPad and iPad 2 was granted after the ITC found that the aforementioned products infringed on Samsung Patent No. 7,706,348, titled “Apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system.”

In a recent letter to Irving A. Williamson, the Chairman of the ITC, the United States Trade Representative Michael B. G. Froman declared the following:

After extensive consultations with the agencies of the Trade Policy Staff Committee and the Trade Policy Review Group [...] I have decided to disapprove the USITC’s determination to issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order in this investigation.

The letter was continued by noting that the Obama administration was “committed to promoting innovation and economic progress, including through providing adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.” The folks over at The Verge noted that this is the first time since 1987 that the President of the United States has interfered with a decision made by the ITC. This comes after the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) recently criticized this sort of use of sales ban (rather than monetary compensation) as a means of executing patent infringement *** it n effect harms rival products and companies and doesn’t promote a competitive trading environment.

The folks over at CNET previously cited experts who believed it was unlikely for the administration to step in on this case but this was proven to be wrong. It was just last week that Verizon attorney Randal Milch published an open letter calling for presidential intervention in this case to veto the ban. The ban would have otherwise gone into effect on August 5th, 2013. Fortunately for Apple, the ban has been vetoed.

If opinion is presented as opinion, I don't care which party or wing it represents. When opinion is presented as, literally, facts, then it is not representing news or reality. When an organization is run by the "former" head of a political party, and hires members of the same party to present "facts" on the station while they are actively involved in running for elective office, it is not news, it is propaganda. If you watched Fox on the night Obama won his second election, and saw the meltdown of a key Republican player on the air live, then it must be clear that "news" as I understand it is not being presented by that network.

Oh, and I wouldn't care what either Al Sharpton nor Rachael Maddow say as to their opinions (neither one interests me). But I am certain that NBC does keep a rein on what facts are presented, and that political players aren't hired by the station to advance their personal goals in elective politics. MSNBC does follow what remains of the old rules of a news organization. Fox is an entertainment organization which delivers propaganda in the furtherance of a single political party.

Really? So NOTHING Obama has done has been a good or positive thing to you, EXCEPT for allowing Apple to sell off old stock? Really?

So getting equal pay for women

Sorry but Obama had nothing to do with that.

, keeping student loans available and relatively cheap (how many members here are in high school or college right now?)

First of all, again Obama did nothing of the sort. Second, student loans as well as college tuition has gotten more expensive across the board, no cheaper. Obviously you're just talking out of your ***.

, putting into place a consumer protection agency to help all of us

Once more, he had nothing to do with this. This already existed for years.

, getting semi-universal health care that gave 4 million children living in poverty health care as well as allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance until the age of 26 (again, how many high school and college kids are reading this right now?), stopping insurers from refusing to insure you if you have a pre-existing ailment

Please read all 2,000+ pages of that bill you're referring to and you may not be so eager to praise it. It doesn't even eliminate pre-existing ailments. What it is is a very poorly conceived bill that'll just end up raising taxes even more then they already have been under this Administration to fun the program, as well as the army of new IRS agents being hired and trained to enforce it. Enjoy.

, ending Bush's war in Iraq, all these and more are as nothing compared to letting Apple sell old stock?

Again, giving credit where it seriously isn't due. The Iraq campaign was already ending by the time he took process. I'm not going to get into whether or not it was a premature exit, though.

What is it about the right wing in America now that thinks that all our problems would go away if only Obama was gone?

You know, I don't hear any so-called "right wingers" saying that, but rather putting blame where it's due. Just like how there are people who believe that Apple can never do any wrong, the same applies to Obama, where there are people who'll defend him no matter how hard he screws up.

Is it because he is a Democrat?

No, it's because of what he's actually done. It's not about race, party affiliation, etc, it's about his record, and it speaks for itself.

Or you think (wrongly) that he is foreign-born?

Again, it's you who's bringing this sort of thing up. It seems to come up anything a leftist tries to defend Obama. No one here has said anything of the sort. Again, it comes down to his record, and his inability to lead a nation which he was demonstrated. Just take a look at what's going on around the country, and you might be surprised at how bad it's gotten in a lot of places and for a lot of people.

That he is not one of "us?" Or that (my belief) that he is Black in a country always previously run by Whites? And that NOTHING he has done is good, even when it is obviously good for them?

Again, why are you trying to make things like race an issue here?

Please get it through you head: Most people who dislike President Obama do so because of his performance as President of the United States, simple as that. It's not a race problem, for most it's not even a issue of being a Democrat, but just what he as actually done during his time as President.

I'm not going to go any further here, as you seem to be just rewriting the same arguments over and over. If you want to support the current president, then go ahead. What I dislike the most, however, is people who try to claim that we should look past things like race, etc, and then at the same time want to give someone special treatment because of exactly that. and in the case of Obama, it's like people want to give him leeway seemingly because of it, to the point of allowing him to get away with just about anything, acting like what ever he does, no matter how negative the impact, is perfectly ok. The last time I saw such accommodating behavior was, to be frank, in a special ed class. which I got to witness a lot when I worked IT at an elementary school.

Since your first response is so terribly terribly incorrect there is no use in replying to anything else you wrote:

"he Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181) is a federal statute in the United States that was the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009. The Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new act states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck.
An earlier bill seeking to supersede the Ledbetter decision, also called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was first introduced in the 110th United States Congress but was not successfully enacted at that time, as it was passed by the House but failed in the Senate."

Since your first response is so terribly terribly incorrect there is no use in replying to anything else you wrote:

"he Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181) is a federal statute in the United States that was the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009. The Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new act states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins

What does this have to do with the President, though? Presidents sign many things, but really had nothing else to do with it, but rather Congress. This was going to go through no matter what President would be have been in the Oval Office. We are talking about a man who as Senator had a rather consistent voting record of "present", and only casting a real vote when the matter at hand was insignificant, so I would really like to know what exactly made him qualified for his present post? Keep in mind I ask this in the most color-blind way, as I would have the same concerns regardless of what he looks like. I'm sick and tired of double standards and treating someone like a special snowflake who can never screw up in some people's eyes.